The Stone Age Conference in Bergen 2017

(1)

UBAS University of Bergen Archaeological Series

The Stone Age Conference in Bergen 2017

Dag Erik Færø Olsen (ed.)

U niv ersity of B ergen Ar chaeological S eries 12

12

(2)

The Stone Age Conference in Bergen 2017

(3)

(4)

The Stone Age Conference in Bergen 2017

Dag Erik Færø Olsen (ed.)

2022

UBAS

University of Bergen Archaeological Series

12

(5)

UBAS – University of Bergen Archaeological Series 12 Copyright: The authors, 2022

University Museum of Bergen (UM) and

Department of Archaeology, History, Cultural Studies, and Religion (AHKR) Box 7800

5020 Bergen Norway

ISBN 978-82-8436-002-7 (printed) UBAS 12 ISBN 978-82-8436-003-4 (online)

ISSN 2535-390X (printed) ISSN 2535-3918 (online) Editors of the series UBAS Nils Anfinset

Randi Barndon Knut Andreas Bergsvik Søren Diinhoff Lars L. Forsberg Layout

Cover: Arkikon, www.arkikon.no

Material: Christian Bakke, Communication Division, University of Bergen Reverse side photo

Stone hatchet from the middle Mesolithic site Hovland 3, Larvik municipality, Vestfold and Telemark county (No.: Cf34100_617). Photo: Kirsten Helgeland, KHM.

Print

07 Media AS, Norway Paper: 115 g Galerie Art Silk

Typography: Adobe Garamond Pro and Myriad Pro

(6)

List of authors

Krister Scheie Eilertsen

Museum of Archaeology, University of Stavanger [email protected]

Kidane Fanta Gebremariam

Jan Mangerud

Department of Earth Science, University of Bergen [email protected]

Axel Müller

Natural History Museum, University of Oslo/Natural History Museum, London.

[email protected] Astrid J. Nyland

Arne Johan Nærøy

Dag Erik Færø Olsen

Museum of Cultural History, University of Oslo [email protected]

Almut Schülke

Birgitte Skar

NTNU University Museum, Trondheim [email protected]

Skule O. S. Spjelkavik

NTNU University Museum, Trondheim [email protected]

John Inge Svendsen

Bjerknes Center for Climate Research [email protected]

Gaute Reitan

Kenneth Webb Berg Vollan

Tromsø University Museum, UiT – The Arctic University of Norway [email protected]

Ruben With

(8)

9

Preface

This anthology is based on contributions presented as part of The Stone Age Conference in Bergen 2017 – Coast and Society, research and cultural heritage management. The conference was co-organized by the Department of Archaeology, History, Cultural Studies and Religion (AHKR) at the University of Bergen and the Department of Cultural History at the University Museum of Bergen (UM). The organizing committee included Dag Erik Færø Olsen (leader) and Tina Jensen Granados from AHKR, together with Leif Inge Åstveit and Knut Andreas Bergsvik from UM.

The Stone Age Conference in Bergen 2017 was the third instalment of the “Stone Age Conference” series to be organized in Norway. The first conference was held in Bergen in 1993 (Bergsvik et al. 1995) and the second in Molde in 2003. The purpose for the 2017 conference in Bergen was to gather archaeologists with common interest in the Norwegian Stone Age and from all parts of the national Stone Age community. Several prominent research communities exist in Norway today and representatives from all University departments and from the majority of the County Municipalities was gathered to share current results and to discuss common issues and strategies for future research.

Since the last conference in 2003, the cultural heritage management in Norway has made large quantities of new archaeological data accessible for research. Such extensive new data has provided new methodological and theoretical challenges and opportunities which is reflected in the scope of research published within the last 20 years.

The Stone Age Conference in Bergen 2017 wanted to reflect the new empirical, theoretical and methodological diversity, and to highlight how these developments could be integrated into the cultural heritage management and within future research. The conference was structured by current themes and approaches and divided into five main sessions (including a poster session) and seven session themes (see Sessions and papers at the end of this volume).

An increasing association with the natural scientific approaches was one important theme of the conference focusing on research on climate change, aDNA and new and improved methods for analysis and dating. Related to this was the general theme technology were studies on raw material and technological studies are used in mobility- and network analysis.

Managing and utilizing the large quantities of data generated over the last two decades was the basis for the themes demography and subsistence changes. The theme methodological developments included increasing digitalization and how this is used in rescue archaeology, with challenges and new possibilities. The conference also wanted to explore aspects of ritual communication where various forms of expressions, such as rock art, could elaborate and increase our understanding of several of the other main themes mentioned.

During the three days of the conference a total of 46 15 minutes presentations addressed various topics and aspects within the seven session themes. All sessions were led by session leaders and three of the conference sessions were introduced by key note speakers.

After the conference, it was decided to publish an anthology, inviting all participants to contribute including the poster participants. The publication was to be in the University

(9)

of Bergen Archaeological Series, UBAS, and with Dag Erik Færø Olsen as editor of the anthology. Ten papers were submitted from all the sessions and is representative of the topics presented and discussed during the three-day conference. The papers included in this volume are organized mainly geographically starting with Northern Norway moving southwards.

Kenneth Webb Vollan focuses on housepit sites in Arctic Norway using radiocarbon dates for distinguishing reuse or occupational phases. He presents a method for analysing dates following the Bayesian approach and shows that the housepits were reused to a much larger degree than previous acknowledged.

Skule Spjelkavik and Axel Müller explores similar topics in their paper about quartz crystal provenance. By using laser ablation inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (LA-ICP- MS) they were able to compare debitage from the Early Mesolithic settlement site Mohalsen I at the island Vega with samples from 19 known sources in Norway. This is especially interesting since there are no known quartz crystal occurrences at Vega and was consequently brought from the main land or other areas. This study shows the potential for using this method, even though no clear parallel to the Mohalsen debitage could be identified in the analysed material.

Jan Mangerud and John Inge Svendsen explores colonization processes from a geological perspective. They document how an ice sheet margin presented a physical barrier across the Oslofjord preventing human immigration until the onset of the Holocene, providing an interesting backdrop for discussing aspects of colonization processes in the Early Mesolithic.

Arne Johan Nærøy discusses the use of tools and behaviour patterns based on use-wear analysis of quartz assemblage from the site 16 Budalen in Øygarden, Hordaland County. He is able to distinguish two individuals operating at the site suggesting spatially segregated work operations. Nærøy shows through this study the potential for functional analysis of lithic material from settlement sites.

Astrid Nyland, Kidane Fanta Gebremariam and Ruben With’s contribution represents both the new technological and methodological developments and the interdisciplinary nature of archaeology today. This paper explorers the potential for using pXRF for regional provenance analysis of greenstone adzes in western Norway. This study revisits an older interpretation of the division of this region into two social territories in the Middle and Late Mesolithic.

The results show that the method is robust and well suited for studying green stone and the authors can also largely confirm the original interpretations based on distribution networks of Mesolithic adzes.

Birgitte Skar discusses the early postglacial migration into Scandinavia based on aDNA studies on two Early Mesolithic Norwegian skeletons. Skar’s results confirms the recent interpretation of a second migration into Norway from the Northeast thus contributing to the overall narrative of the colonization of Norway.

Almut Schülke revisits the topic of Mesolithic burial practises in Norway based on new data from recent excavations. Schülke highlights that human remains are often found at settlement sites, opening for discussions of various relationships between the living and the dead and human-nature engagement.

(10)

11 Krister Eilertsen presents results from an excavation of an Early Neolithic hut in Rogaland, Southwestern Norway. He discusses classical interpretative challenges where the lithic material and ¹⁴C-datings are not comparable. Eilertsen emphasise the importance of not dismissing difficult results but rather try to find an answer to the differences in light of a wider analysis of the area including various natural and cultural processes. He is thus able to explain the contrasting data and provide new insight into settlement patterns and economy at the start of the Neolithic.

Dag Erik Færø Olsen reviews the rock shelters in the mountain regions of Hardangervidda and Nordfjella. The previous interpretation of these settlement sites as primarily from the Late Neolithic and onwards is discussed based on a reclassification of archaeological material. The results show that rock shelters have been used from at least the Middle Mesolithic and in some cases with an intensification and stronger continuity after 2350 BC.

Gaute Reitan discusses the chronological division of the Mesolithic based on new data from excavations the last 20 years. Reitan presents a revised chronology for the Mesolithic in Southeast Norway dividing each of the three main phases into two sub-phases, adding two new phases to Egil Mikkelsen’s original from 1975.

Acknowledgements

On the behalf of the organizing committee, we would like to thank all participants of Steinalderkonferansen i Bergen 2017 for sharing their knowledge and for the discussions that followed at the conference. We also want to express our gratitude to the conference key note speakers, Prof. Kjel Knutsson (Dep. of Archaeology and Ancient History, Uppsala University), Assoc. Prof. Per Persson (Dep. of Archaeology, Museum of Cultural History, University of Oslo) and Prof. Charlotte Damm (Dep. of Archaeology, History, Religious Studies and Theology, The Arctic University of Norway) for introducing three of the conference sessions.

This gratitude is also extended to five session leaders, Assoc. Prof. Arne Johan Nærøy (Museum of Archaeology, University of Stavanger), Prof. Marianne Skandfer (The Arctic University Museum of Norway), Assoc. Prof. Birgitte Skar (Dep. of Archaeology and Cultural History, NTNU University Museum), Prof. Hans Peter Blankholm (Dep. of Archaeology, History, Religious Studies and Theology, The Arctic University of Norway) and Prof. Almut Schülke (Dep. of Archaeology, Museum of Cultural History, University of Oslo).

During the three-day conference the committee received assistance from voluntary students from The University of Bergen and they provided valuable help during the conference.

We would also like to thank the following institutions for their generous funding:

Bergen University fund (UiB), University Museum of Bergen (UiB), Museum of Cultural History (UiO), Museum of archaeology, University of Stavanger (UiS), The Arctic University of Norway (UiT), NTNU University Museum, Department of Archaeology, History, Cultural Studies and Religion (UiB), and the Directorate for Cultural Heritage (Riksantikvaren).

Without this support it would not have been possible to organize the conference. The Museum of Cultural History also contributed generously towards the production of the book.

(11)

The editor of this anthology would further like to express gratitude to all the anonymous peer reviewers whose valuable comments and insights has made this publication possible.

Last, but not least, thank you to the authors of this anthology for the patience and work on the papers that make out this volume.

Dag Erik Færø Olsen and Tina Jensen Granados – Oslo 2021

References

Bergsvik, K.A. Nygård, S. and Nærøy, A.J. 1995, eds. Steinalderkonferansen i Bergen 1993.

Arkeologiske Skrifter, 8. Bergen, University Museum of Bergen.

(12)

123

The Stone Age Conference in Bergen 2017 • UBAS 12

Almut Schülke

Placing – fragmenting – circulating:

Mesolithic burial and mortuary practices in Norway in a Northern European perspective

Abstract

This contribution investigates burial and mortuary practice in the Mesolithic period (9300–3900 BC) in what today is defined as Norway. This issue has received little attention, as poor preservation conditions for bone material in the forest zone of the North has led to a low number of finds. Recent excavations of single burials at e.g. Brunstad and Sømmevågen trigger off a reassessment of the topic. The twelve sites with human bones, which could be identified, dating to the Middle and Late Mesolithic, were studied and compared. Even though statistically not significant, they exhibit some common traits: Human remains are mainly found in the places of the living: on coastal settlement sites, including caves/rockshelters and open-air sites. This broad spectrum of sites indicates human engagement with different natural and cultural elements when dealing with the dead: hollows, water, earth and cultural debris. Both graves with apparently intact human bodies and single (loose) human bones can be identified. Together with sites found in wetlands with seemingly selected types of bones, these bear witness to a broad range of mortuary practices, including inhumation, the fragmenting of corpses and the circulation of selected bones. This is in line with practices observed in other parts of Northern Europe; a special closeness to finds from Western Sweden is observed. As in other areas it is most likely that only a small number of people were actually buried, while most of them received other treatment in death, not easily visible archaeologically. The identification of these various phenomena will hopefully make it possible to identify other find contexts in future, and will be important when discussing social and ritual aspects of Mesolithic hunter-gatherer societies, not least regarding studies on genetics and mobility.

Introduction

In the areas which today constitute Norway the Mesolithic period is attested by a rich body of archaeological material with thousands of predominantly coast-based settlement sites. In contrast, direct evidence of Mesolithic people through human remains is almost absent in the record, hampering studies of physical biographies, death, the handling of dead people by the living community, mortuary practices and burial structures. This shortage of mortuary evidence, also observed in the neighbouring areas of Northern Sweden and Finland (Mökkönen 2013, Ahola 2017), has been explained in terms of poor preservation conditions for osseous

(13)

Almut Schülke

material in the acid soils of the coniferous zone (Glørstad 2010, p. 240–243). Death as a topic has therefore hardly been touched upon in the Norwegian Mesolithic debate (Lødøen 2015, p. 86). The few finds of mortuary evidence from Norway are, at first sight, ambiguous in material expression, spanning across long time periods and large areas (earlier overviews in Indrelid 1996, p. 53–57, Sellevold and Skar 1999, Solberg 2006). By contrast the moraine and limestone soils of South Scandinavia, the Central European plain and of the Baltic area have preserved human bones from the Mesolithic period. Between the 1960s and 1980s key finds from these regions such as the grave fields from Vedbæk on Zealand (Brinch Petersen 2015), Skateholm I and II in Scania (Larsson 1988), or Zvejnieki in Latvia (Zagorskis 2004, Larsson and Zagorska 2006), shaped the understanding of Mesolithic mortuary practices, implying that inhumation was the most common mode of burying the dead from the 9th to the end of the 5th millennium cal. BC. Recent research has substantiated that Mesolithic mortuary practices were much more varied than formerly assumed (Bugajska 2014, Stutz 2014, Grünberg 2016). New finds and reviews of older finds that were previously written off as atypical, show that the dead and dead bodies were treated in manifold ways, including manipulation of the buried body (e.g. Stutz 2003, Gray Jones 2011, Gumiński and Bugajska 2016), cremation (Bugajska 2014, Tab. 3, p. 65–66, Eriksen and Andersen 2016, Niekus et al. 2016, Sjögren and Ahlström 2016) and the laying out/elevation of the dead, with re- burying or re-use of bones after the disintegration of the body (Gray Jones 2011, Petersen 2016, Sørensen 2016). Some recent finds of Mesolithic graves in Norway, such as Brunstad and Sømmevågen, have triggered new interest in these topics. Furthermore, new studies of west Norwegian Mesolithic rock art suggest that the low number of Mesolithic burials might be connected to the existence of mortuary rituals which could involve defleshing of corpses, which might be depicted on some rock carving sites (Lødøen 2015).

This article deals with Mesolithic mortuary and burial practices in Norway (c. 9300–3900 cal.

BC), represented through twelve sites which have yielded human remains that can be dated to the Mesolithic period. Even though the number of finds is low and covers thousands of years, some trends in the material can be identified, revealing variation in the treatment of the dead, their bodies, the way these bodies or body parts were deposited, and the diversity of contexts and places of deposition, also regarding natural and cultural elements. This will be discussed in the light of Mesolithic mortuary practices in adjacent regions of Northern Europe.

Mortuary remains as evidence of intertwined actions, (ritual) practices and events with different temporal dimensions

A more nuanced general understanding of the treatment of the dead in archaeology in recent years (e.g. Fahlander and Oestigaard 2008) has opened up for understanding mortuary remains and burial finds as more than representing a specific burial custom within a specific cultural frame. Rituals and treatment of the dead which involve practices before and after the body/body parts came into the earth have been included in the discussion (Stutz 2003).

One way for archaeologists to explore and understand these dynamic processes are reviews of ethnographic data. They show a variety of modes of practically dealing with the dead and their bodily remains, often in several steps and with complex temporalities (Meyer-Orlac 1982, p. 139, Nieuwhof 2015, Fig. 7.2). As Figure 1 illustrates, dead bodies can be left behind or be exposed right after death (e.g. elevated in a tree), they can be (either as intact bodies or

(14)

125

Placing – fragmenting – circulatingperspective

body parts) buried shortly after death, either unburned or cremated. They can also be stored, preserved or skeletonized and manipulated/fragmented and only deposited in the ground later. Single body parts can be kept in circulation for a long time before they, for some reason, come into the ground. Exposed or retained body parts can be eaten by carnivores.

Figure 1: Sketch of diverse ways of dealing with dead bodies and possible combinations of practices (not exhaustive) (after Meyer-Orlac 1982; 139 and Nieuwhof 2015, Fig. 7.2), slightly revised by the author.

The theoretical perspective applied here sees the archaeological site not only as a place of deposition, in this case of the Mesolithic human remains, but also as a focal point from which various intertwined processes and actions can be studied (Schülke 2016). These are related to intentions and practices behind the depositions of these bodies/body parts, with different temporal dimensions, and can trace mortuary practice beyond the mere find-spot – temporally and spatially. However, the form and place of deposition also have an effect on the surroundings and thus are more “concrete” than many of the more ephemeral practices that lead to their formation. The deposition of the body/body parts is one stage in a temporally enmeshed sequence of practices and events within a certain social context. These include the times before the human remains were deposited (e.g. biography in the sense of physical and mobility history of the once living individual, dying and mortuary ritual performed by the survivors including the steps in the treatment of the dead body), during the act of deposition, and even after the remains were placed (e.g. revisiting a grave or monument, later manipulation of the burial etc.). Thus, archaeological mortuary contexts can be considered as parts of a series of (ritual) practices or operational chains – each with different temporalities, but also as places which, from the time of their making, affected their surroundings. Such dynamics have been addressed for specific aspects of Mesolithic burial finds. These include the construction of a grave (Larsson 2016a), the treatment, manipulation, adornment and

(15)

Almut Schülke

positioning of the body/bodies of the deceased (e.g. Stutz 2003, Gray Jones 2011), the character, positioning and the lack of grave-goods (e.g. Kjällquist 2001, Larsson 2016a) and the way of filling and possible marking of the grave (e.g. Brinch Petersen 2015, p. 101–105).

It also encompasses anthropogenic post-burial events, for example newer graves which cut into older ones (Stutz et al. 2013). Studies of more complex, multistep mortuary practices attest to intentional manipulations of burials, where specific bones/body parts are taken out of the grave context and later deposited together with bones of other humans and animals in pits close by (Bugajska and Gumiński 2016). Further, the topic of loose human bones in settlements and møddinger has been discussed in the light of ethnographic studies, which report that ancestors’ bones were used in living life (e.g. Brinch Petersen 2016).

The more considered the interpretation of the evidence regarding the involvement of temporally different steps of activity, the more difficult it is to establish a clear terminology. This is e.g. reflected in discussions of the term “grave” (Larsson 2016b), or on how to denominate multistep burials (e.g. Struwe 2016, footnote 5). Furthermore, drawing the line between burials and the mistreatment of/violence against humans and their bodies is a challenge from the archaeologist’s perspective (e.g. Gummesson et al. 2018).

In the following I will use these terms:

– deposition: intentional or unintentional deposition of material/human remains – burial: intentional depositions of human remains within mortuary practice

– grave: a burial which is dug down into either a cultural layer, into earth, or into a stone pile – mortuary practice: practice in the widest sense connected to the death of a person (before,

during and after burial)

– burial practice: practice connected to the burial of a person/persons.

Mesolithic human remains, burials and mortuary practices from Norway

This study focuses on the twelve sites from Norway¹ which have yielded human bones dated to the Mesolithic period (9300–3900 BC) (Figure 2: sites 1–12). In Figure 4 and Figure 5 the sites which have yielded both remains of intact bodies and of single (loose) human bones are split up into (a) and (b).

The data were mainly compiled from the literature, in some cases excavation reports were consulted.² A number of factors bias the data. These include the heterogeneous quality of the publications. Several of the finds were made in connection with older excavations of settlement sites and were regarded as side products which were not documented in any detail. Another factor is preservation conditions, which can obfuscate the mere presence of human bone material, including the character of the originally deposited human bodies/

body parts. Furthermore, encompassing archaeo-osteological or thanatological analyses must remain subject of future research. They can provide insights into health during lifetime, into the pre-, peri- and post-mortem treatment of the body. This might include lethal injuries, manipulations of the dead body such as the removal of body or skeletal parts, or a closer study of taphonomic factors of the deposition situation, such as physical and biochemical processes which can alter the composition and spatial order of deposited human remains.

(16)

127

Figure 2: Map of the Norwegian sites with human bones dated to the Mesolithic period. Mesolithic period. For more information on the sites see Figure 4 and Figure 5. Illustration: A. Schülke, based on geographic information by Statens Kartverk.

(17)

Almut Schülke

A variety of site locations along the coast

All of the sites with Mesolithic human bones were located at the coast at their time of use (Fig.

2): three in southeast Norway (nos. 1, 6, 7),³ two in north Norway (nos. 10, 12) and seven in west Norway (nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 11).

The Mesolithic topographic locations vary, however, in terms of local topography and accessibility (Figure 2 and Figure 3). Five of the finds (41.7%) stem from rock shelters (nos. 3, 8, 9) and caves (nos. 5, 12). These are situated along the west Norwegian coast (nos. 3, 5, 8, 9) and in Nordland (no. 12). Two, Grønehelleren (no. 8) and Steigen (no. 12), are spectacularly located on islands in the outer archipelago. Viste cave is placed on a rather sheltered islands in an archipelago (no. 5), Sævarhelleren (no. 9) alongside a fjord (nos. 3, 9), and Skipshelleren (no. 9) in a fjord.

Total Outer archipelago Inner archipelago Along fjords/

coastal mainland

Rockshelters/caves 5 2 1 2

Open-air settlements 5 4 1

Wetlands/sea 2 2

Figure 3: Site types and topographic context of the sites with Mesolithic human bone material. Diagram: A.

Schülke.

Five (41.7%) stem from open coastal settlements. Søndre Steghaugen (no. 4), Brunstad (no.

6), Torpum 9b (no. 7) and Sømmevågen (no. 11) are placed on rather sheltered islands in archipelagos and Gropbakkeengen in north Norway (no. 10) near the coast on the mainland.

Two of the finds (16.6%) were made in modern wetlands: while Bleivik (no. 2) was a seabed in the Mesolithic, Hummervikholmen (no. 1), which today is an underwater site, most likely represents a transgressed coastal site in the inner archipelago of the southern Norwegian (Skagerrak) coast.

Direct and indirect dating of the human bone material

Chronologically the contexts with human bones from the twelve sites stretch from c. 7900–

4000 cal. BC (Fig. 5). Two of them date to the Middle Mesolithic (8200–6350 cal. BC), nine to the Late Mesolithic (6350–3900 cal. BC), while one could be both (no. 3). Eight contexts are ¹⁴C-dated directly on bone or tooth material (nos. 1, 2, 5a, 8a, 10, 11b, 12). For most of these a δ¹³C-value is also reported, which allows a correction of the datings for the marine reservoir effect. The others are indirectly dated, either through ¹⁴C-dating of charcoal from their direct context (no. 6, most likely also no. 4, see below) or through stratigraphic affiliation.

Human bones from wetlands/wet contexts

The human bones from Hummervikholmen (no. 1), which were found under water in the 1990s and again in 2013, most likely stem from a coastal site located on a little island in the Inner Archipelago of the Skagerrak coast, which was later transgressed. The human bones were found in an area of approximately 8×10 metres, together with some boulders, four wooden sticks and some bones of marine animals (Eggen and Nymoen 2014, Nymoen 2014, p. 57).

The first bones were found in the mid-1990s under water after the site had been damaged

(18)

129

The Stone Age Conference in Bergen 2017 • UBAS 12 No.

Site, County*

Mesolithic location Site context Subsurface

Number of individuals (from intact bodies and single bones) Intact bodies Single bones Find context Body position Grave-goods Source

Middle Mesolithic 1Hummervikholmen, Vest- Agderisland, archipelago, sea?

sea-floor/ sand

3–5–x??–

Sellevold/Skar 1999; Eggen/Nymoen 2014; Nymoen 2014; Skar et al. 2016; Günther et al. 2018 S1 Tab. S1.3. 2Bleivik, Rogalandseaseafloorsea1––?––Lie 1985; Indrelid 1996, 53 footnote 28. Middle/Late Mesolithic 3Sævarhelleren, Hordalandalong fjordrock-sheltercultural layer1+–xcultural layer––Bergsvik/Storvik 2012, 29 (no. 10). Late Mesolithic 4Søndre Steghaugen, Møre og Romsdalisland

coastal settlemen

tsand1?–grave/ deposit??–Åstveit 2008; Sellevold 2008. 5aViste cave, Rogalandislandcavecultural layer1x–grave?

possibly fle– xed

Brøgger 1908; Fürst 1909; Gjessing 1920; Hufthammer/ Meiklejohn 1986; Bergsvik/Storvik 2012, 31 (no. 22); Schulting et al. 2016. 5bViste cave, Rogalandislandcavecultural layer1+–x?––Fürst 1909 Fig. 3–5; Bergsvik/Storvik 2012, 31 (no. 22). 6Brunstad, Vestfoldisland, archipelago

coastal settlemen

tsand1x–in gravehalf-sitting, flexed legs–Reitan et al. 2018; Schülke et al. 2019; Reitan et al. 2019.

(19)

Almut Schülke

No.

Site, County*

Mesolithic location Site context Subsurface

Number of individuals (from intact bodies and single bones) Intact bodies Single bones Find context Body position Grave-goods Source

7Torpum 9b, Østfoldisland

coastal settlemen

tcultural layer1+–x?–Tørhaug 2003. 8aGrønehelleren, Sogn og Fjordaneoffshore islandrock-sheltercultural layer3x?–in one or more grave pits

skeleton II: flexed, skeleton III and IV: unsure

–Jansen 1972; Indrelid 1996, 53 footnote 27; Bergsvik/Storvik 2012, 27 (no. 6). 8bGrønehelleren, Sogn og Fjordaneoffshore islandrock-sheltercultural layer1+–x?––Jansen 1972. 9Skipshelleren, Hordalandalong fjordrock-sheltercultural layer1+–x?––Bergsvik/Storvik 2012, 27 (no. 8). 10Gropbakkeengen, Finnmarkmainland, coast- based

coastal settlemen

tgravel1x–grave in a stone heaphocker- positionxSimonsen 1961, 182– 183; Helskog 1980. 11aSømmevågen, Rogalandisland, archipelago

coastal settlemen

tsand1+??–in grave–xDenham 2016. 11bSømmevågen, Rogalandisland, archipelago

coastal settlemen

tsand1+–x

in rubbish heap

–xDenham 2016; Meling et al. 2020; Meling et al. in press. 12Steigen, Nordlandoffshore islandcavecave floor1–xdeposited––Günther et al. 2018, Supplement S1. * county before the county reform from 2020 Figure 4: Find contexts with human bones dated to the Mesolithic from Norway, in chronological order. For the dating of the finds see Figure 5. – denotes “non-existent”, ? denotes “uncertain”, + indicates that more individuals than the given number might be represented.

(20)

131

by dredging. After the sieving of the re-deposited sediments the remains of at least three, but maybe up to five adult individuals were verified – amongst them fragments of at least three skulls and of (partly fragmented) long bones (Sellevold and Skar 1999, Skar et al. 2016). Nine bone samples were ¹⁴C-dated to a rough timespan between 8227 and 6828 cal. BC (Skar et al.

2016, Table 14.1); taking the marine reservoir effect into account they most likely were some hundred year’s younger (Günther et al. 2018, Supplementary information p. 7). Skar et al.

(2016) argue that even if there were no clear signs of grave pits (ibid. p. 230) during excavation, the excellent preservation of the bones together with stratigraphic observations indicate that the finds represented a grave site, which had been flooded by the Tapes transgression c. 6950 cal. BC (8000 BP), and afterwards sealed by an oyster bank. In 2013 more bones were found at the same spot in connection with an underwater archaeological excavation before further dredging (Eggen and Nymoen 2014, Nymoen 2014). Eight bones of at least two individuals were with certainty human, including cranial fragments and teeth as well as fragments of an upper and of a lower leg bone. Additionally, bones of fish, seabirds and seal were found, as well as four wooden sticks, which showed no signs of human treatment. Two of the human bones were dated to the Middle Mesolithic around 7500 cal. BC, 8393±55 BP (Ua-47891) and to 8446±51 BP (Ua-47892), while the two dated wooden sticks are several hundred years older (Eggen and Nymoen 2014, fig. 22). In the light of the 2013 excavations, the theory of Hummervikholmen representing a grave-site was rejected, and it was discussed whether the find might represent the remains of a ritual deposit (Eggen and Nymoen 2014). Nymoen (2014) argues that the stratigraphy of the seabed most likely indicates a repositioning of the human bones from dry ground close to the beach into the sea – caused by a natural event such as a flood wave or tsunami, and that the wooden sticks most likely represent naturally deposited wood. It is important to stress that the datings of the human bones from Hummervikholmen stretch across some hundred years (see Fig. 5).

From the coast-near wetland at Bleivik (no. 2), which was a seabed in the Mesolithic, skeletal parts of a person around the age of 60 were found through trenching (Lie 1985). The following bones were dug up: a cranium, some teeth, some ribs, two vertebrae, two thighbones and an upper arm bone (Lie 1985, Indrelid 1996, p. 53); according to Sellevold and Skar (1999) the remains of a woman. One bone was ¹⁴C-dated to around 6900 BC, 7950±110 BP (T-2882) (Indrelid 1996, 53 footnote 28, Sellevold and Skar 1999, p. 8). It has been suggested that the individual might have drowned (Bang-Andersen 1983), or that the (dead) body might have been plunged into the sea (Lie 1985).

Burials of human bodies from caves and rock shelters

The records of finds of human remains from cultural layers in caves and rock shelters vary (Bergsvik and Storvik 2012). Common for all of these sites are the good preservation conditions for bone material due to the large amounts of shells in these layers.

Excavations in the Viste cave (no. 5) in 1907 yielded the skeletal remains of a juvenile individual, placed close to the rock wall in the rear of the cave (Brøgger 1908). The find, with one of the first known Stone Age humans from Scandinavia, was a sensation at its time. The context of the human remains was not documented on site. Later, it was reconstructed that they most likely were covered by a human-made shell layer (Brøgger 1908, Gjessing 1920, 76–77). The positioning of the body was described as possibly half-sitting, as the remains of the skull were recorded as having been higher up in the sediments than the leg bones (Brøgger

(21)

Almut Schülke

1908, p. 26–29). An osteological analysis by the renowned Swedish anthropologist C. M.

Fürst (1909), who also took down oral accounts on the find situation, stated that the body was deposited in unscathed condition, with the head leaning against the rock wall, perhaps in a hocker position. Fürst did not, however, fully rule out that the corpse was just placed on the ground and then covered by the shell layer over time.⁴ The Viste skeleton was recently dated on bone to 6255–6025 cal. BC, corrected for the reservoir effect, 7537±39 BP (OxA-30405) (Schulting et al. 2016).

In the rock shelter Grønehelleren (no. 8) several burials were excavated in 1964 and 1966.

These are described in Jansen (1972), although detailed plans, drawings or photos of the situation are missing. Skeleton I (skjelett I) was very well preserved and placed in a hocker position on its right side, in a pit parallel to the wall of the rock shelter (Jansen 1972, p.

58–59). It is dated to the Middle Neolithic (Bergsvik and Storvik 2012, 27 (no. 5), Indrelid 1996, 53 footnote 27), and thus not relevant here. Two teeth and a collarbone were found near to skeleton I (Jansen 1972, p. 61); their date is unclear. Not far from skeleton I the remains of at least three other individuals (Skeletons II–IV; skjelett II–IV) were found in a ‘pit’ (nedgravning) (Jansen 1972, p. 16–18). The unclear stratigraphic situation suggests either that the persons were buried at the same time because ‘they are touching each other’

(da de berører hverandre) or in several grave-pits (Jansen 1972, p. 18). Skeleton II, which was almost completely preserved and analysed as a woman in her forties, was placed on the left side, the legs flexed. Skeleton III, analysed as a man around 40 years of age, placed right beside skeleton II, was only partly preserved. Skeleton IV, of which only parts were preserved, was found under skeleton III. Skeleton II was dated to 5343–4686 cal. BC, 6080±140 BP (T-5847) (Bergsvik and Storvik 2012, p. 27 (no. 5), Indrelid 1996, 53 footnote 27), to the Late Mesolithic period. There is however some uncertainty about this dating.⁵ The case of the partly fragmentary Grønehelleren skeletons II–IV exhibits the classic dilemma of the interplay of preservation conditions and the question whether the bodies of the dead were intact when buried or whether they might have been manipulated before they came into the earth or after burial. Either way, at least the three individuals found in Grønehelleren, which might be of Mesolithic age (skeletons II, III and IV), seem to have been buried in one or more pits. The circumstances of the deposition of the Viste individual are more unclear: the body might have been buried in a pit – not identified – in the shell layers, it might have been left behind unburied in the cave, or the person might have even died in the cave without being buried – in these cases later covered by shells.

Graves on open-air settlements

Several open-air settlements have yielded human remains which were deposited in graves. On a coastal settlement dated to 6000–4700 cal. BC at Søndre Steghaugen (no. 4) 18 fragments of unburned human bones, including the fragments of a skull, fragments of a mandible and fragments of ribs of a child 2–4 years of age, were found in an agglomeration of hardpan of yellow-red sand and gravel delimited as structure S 44 with a size of 0.6 m × 1.4 m (Sellevold 2008, Åstveit 2008). Due to its Mesolithic context, the find was first supposed to be a Mesolithic grave with ochre. The bones (part of the jaw) were ¹⁴C-dated to between 1975 and 1880 cal. BC and were therefore interpreted as a Late Neolithic burial, being much later than the settlement (Åstveit 2008). A piece of charcoal which was placed directly into a bone fragment was however ¹⁴C-dated to 6230–6175 cal. BC, 7405±45 BP (TUa-4949).

(22)

133

The Stone Age Conference in Bergen 2017 • UBAS 12 No.

Site

14C-dating Lab.no.

BP Cal BP Cal BC

Standard deviation δ13C

Approximate date BC Dated on Source

Middle Mesolithic 1HummervikholmenTRa-9528850±65 9732- 9368*

2σ-13.4occipital bone, humanSellevold/Skar 1999; Skar et al 2016; Günther et al. 2018 S1 Tab. S1.3. TUa-21078700±70

9524- 9191*

2σ-12.6femur, humanIbid. TRa-9548690±50

9471- 9225*

2σ-13.0cranial fragment, human (Hum 1)Ibid. TRa-9538680±85

9534- 9125*

2σ-13.2tibia, humanIbid. TRa-9518665±100

9555- 9065*

2σ-13.0frontal bone, humanIbid. TUa-21068635±75

9462- 9102*

2σ-13.3occipital bone, humanIbid. TUa-12578600±95

9461- 9011*

2σ-13.4cranial fragment (Hum 1) , humanIbid. TUa-21088455±75

9275- 8895*

2σ-12.9tibia, humanIbid. Ua-478928446±51

7589- 7371

2σ-14.5cranium X90, humanEggen/Nymoen 2014. Ua-478918394±55

7573- 7342

2σ-14.3

leg bone X84, human

Eggen/Nymoen 2014. TUa-21058095±55

8789- 8441*

-13.6frontal bone, humanSellevold/Skar 1999; Skar et al 2016; Günther et al. 2018 S1 Tab. S1.3. 2BleivikT-28827950±110Upper arm bone, humanLie 1985; Indrelid 1996, 53 footnote 28. Middle/Late Mesolithic 3Sævarhelleren---7000-5800stratigraphyBergsvik/Storvik 2012, 29 (no. 10).

(23)

Almut Schülke

No.

Site

14C-dating Lab.no.

BP Cal BP Cal BC

Standard deviation δ13C

Approximate date BC Dated on Source

Late Mesolithic 4Søndre SteghaugenTua-49497405±45 6230- 6175

charcoal from filling Åstveit 2008. 5aViste caveOxA-304057537±39

6255- 6025*

2σ-14.7long bone, humanSchulting et al. 2016. 5bViste cave---6800-5020StratigraphyFürst 1909 Fig. 3-5; Bergsvik/ Storvik 2012, 31 (no. 22). 6BrunstadLuS-11115 7060±45

6018- 5845

2σcharcoal from grave- filling (A2400) Schülke et al 2019; Reitan et al. 2019. UBA-287376943±44

5971- 5731

2σcharcoal from grave- filling (A2400)Ibid. Beta-3831817030±30

5989- 5846

2σcharcoal from grave-

filling (A2400)

Ibid. UBA-287407067±37

6019- 5881

2σfrom hearth A3185 cutting the grave-pitIbid. 7Torpum 9b5500-5300Tørhaug 2003. 8aGrønehellerenT-58476080±140

5343- 4686

bone (skeleton II) , humanJansen 1972; Indrelid 1996, 53 footnote 27; Bergsvik/ Storvik 2012, 27 (no. 6). 8bGrønehelleren---StratigraphyJansen 1972 9Skipshelleren---5200-4900stratigrafiBergsvik/Storvik 2012, 27 (no. 8) 10GropbakkeengenT-21596210±110-marine shellSimonsen 1961, 182-183; Helskog 1980. 11aSømmevågen--4000typologyDenham 2016 11bSømmevågenBeta-3810975440±30

4460- 4355

2σ-15.9arm boneDenham 2016; Meling et al. 2020; Meling et al. in print. 12SteigenBeta-3499615450±30

5950- 5764*

2σ-13.0mandible, humanGünther et al. 2018, Supplement S1 * Corrected for the marine reservoir effect. Figure 5: Dating of the find contexts with human bones

(24)

135

Considering the fact that bone material from Mesolithic graves can generally be difficult to date by radiocarbon (e.g. Kjällquist 2001, Reitan et al. 2019) the find at Søndre Steghaugen might represent a Mesolithic burial and is therefore included here. The spatial placement of the bones is not described closely in the publication, but the bone agglomerations as shown in Åstveit 2008 (Fig. 3.998 and Fig. 3.301), with a distance of c. one metre between them, is rather long considering the body proportions of a child aged 2–4 years. This could indicate two deposits of bones/burials, or a later disturbance of the burial.

At Brunstad in Vestfold, human bone material was found in a grave (A2400) which was placed on a coastal Late Mesolithic settlement (no. 6). The archaeo-osteological analysis of the poorly preserved bone material, combined with the 3D-GIS reconstruction of the spatial placement of the bone elements, revealed that an adult individual was placed in an oval, east- west oriented grave-pit 1.5 m×1.1 m in size, the floor of which was partly lined with stones.

Cranial fragments, including parts of the mandibula, rib bones, elements from the upper and lower extremities (arm, legs) and the right and the left side of the skeleton were represented (Schülke et al. 2019, Fig. 7 and Supplementary material 2). With the head to the east, the body was placed on the back in a half-sitting position, the head slightly bending forward. The legs to the west were extremely flexed, the knees laid to the left (Schülke et al. 2019) (Figure 6). No grave-goods were identified. The grave-pit was filled with different layers of filling material (Reitan et al. 2019, see below).

Figure 6: The grave (A2400) at Brunstad. Photo of the grave-pit in planum (to the left) before excavation of the bone material (here marked with a red circle), and map of the situation of the preserved bone material in the grave (to the right), after Schülke et al. (2019), indicating the burial of an adult individual in flexed/half-sitting position.

Photo: G. Reitan, MCH, UiO; map: K. Eriksen, MCH, UiO.

The grave with bone material too poorly preserved for ¹⁴C-dating is radiocarbon dated to around 5900 cal. BC on charcoal from the grave-filling: 7060±45 BP (LuS-11115), 7030±30 BP (Beta-383181), 6943±44 BP (UBA-28737)) and from the hearth A3185 which cut the southern part of the grave, 7067±37 BP (UBA-28740) (Fig. 4, Reitan et al. 2019, Schülke et al. 2019).

On the Late Mesolithic coastal settlement site of Sømmevågen (no. 11) an east-west oriented oblong pit with the size of 1×2 m, delimited by stones, was found (Denham 2016). In its

(25)

Almut Schülke

western part fragments of human teeth and in its centre fragments of a human hip were recovered. They were identified as the remains of a 20- to 30-year-old individual. Denham (2016) argues that the positioning of the bones might indicate a stretched-out body position.

However, the bone material is too fragmentary to assess the placement of the body. At the centre of the pit three stone axes and a stone chisel, typologically dated to the Late Mesolithic/

Early Neolithic transition were found. These date the grave to the years around 4000 BC.

Around the grave, several fragments of animal bones were deposited, including the jawbone of a bear at the northeast and the hip of a seal at the northwest corner of the grave.

At the fringe of the Stone Age settlement of Gropbakkeengen in Finnmark (no. 10), three stone piles (røyser) were excavated (Simonsen 1961, p. 177–183). Only one of them, røse C, contained the remains of a body, the trace of the skeleton represented as a black lardy substance. Only one knee joint was preserved as bone material. The burial was placed in the stone pile, in a stone-free space (et stenfrit gravrum) which was irregular, almost three-sided, and framed with stones (Simonsen 1961, p. 182–183, for this and the following). The body, encompassed in a layer of sand, was deposited on a charcoal layer, which was placed on top of a compact mass of shells which had been spread on the natural gravel floor. The head was placed to the northeast, on its left side, the legs strongly flexed in a distinct hocker position.

Two items of grave-goods were identified, an arrow made of hornfels and a piece of carved whalebone. The grave is radiocarbon dated to 6210±110 BP (T-2159) (Helskog 1980, p. 49).⁶

Single (loose) human bones from caves/rock shelters and open-air sites

Single human bones, also referred to as loose human bones, are found, in small quantities, at seven sites: in two caves (nos. 5b, 12), in three rock shelters (nos. 3, 8b, 9) and on two open-air settlements (nos. 7, 11b). Three of these sites have additionally yielded the remains of possible burials (nos. 5a, 8a, 11a).

Two finger bones and a metatarsal bone of an adult individual/adult individuals were found in the Mesolithic layers at Viste cave (no. 5b) (Fürst 1909, Figs. 3–5). From Grønehelleren some disarticulated bones are recorded, although it is unclear whether these are of Mesolithic date (no. 8b) (Bergsvik and Storvik 2012, p. 27). Furthermore the fragment of a human skull and a finger joint were found in Mesolithic layers at Sævarhelleren (Bergsvik and Storvik 2012, p.

29) (no. 3). Isolated human bones, all from the extremities such as foot, hand and finger, were found at different spots in Mesolithic layers at Skipshelleren (no. 9) (Bergsvik and Storvik 2012, p. 27).

At Steigen, on the exposed island of Måløya, in Nordland (no. 12), a well-preserved human mandible was found in 2013. About a hundred metres inside a cave it was deposited on a gravel floor close to a large boulder. The subsequent investigation of the surrounding floor did not yield any further finds; however, for safety reasons the boulder was not removed. Teeth from the jaw were dated to 5955–5763 cal. BP, 5450±30 BP (Beta-349961) corrected for the marine reservoir effect (Günther et al. 2018, Supplement S1; see also Fig. 4), that is, in the late part of the Mesolithic.

Given the excellent preservation conditions for bone material in the caves, these finds might actually attest that only a small number of such bones came into the ground here, probably representing other practices than inhumation.⁷

(26)

137

Loose human bones are likewise recorded from the open-air settlement of Sømmevågen (no.

11b). About 30 metres from the grave described above, several skeletal fragments of a human arm were found together with numerous animal bones in a Late Mesolithic trash heap. One bone fragment was ¹⁴C-dated to around 4400 cal. BC, 5440±30 BP (Beta-381097) (Meling et al. 2020; Meling et al. in press). The situation is interpreted as representing some kind of ritual, perhaps including the removal of bones from a grave; but it is all but certain that the arm bones are contemporaneous with the documented grave (Denham 2016).

On the Late Mesolithic settlement at Torpum 9b, Østfold (no. 7), three fragments of burnt human bone were found in a settlement layer (A2) just above a pit (A4) and a hearth (A2c);

charcoal and hazelnut shells from the cultural layer and the structures are ¹⁴C-dated to around 6500–6375 BP (5500–5300 cal. BC) (Tørhaug 2003). These were formerly discussed as possible remains of skeleton burials (skjelettbegravelser) in a mødding (Glørstad 2004, p. 62–63; Glørstad 2010, p. 240–243). In the light of the above, these bones might represent human bones which were circulated amongst the living, and which were intentionally or unintentionally exposed to fire. But they could also be the remains of a destroyed (?) cremation grave.

Conclusion – Trends in the material

The study of the twelve Mesolithic sites with the remains of a minimum 19 individuals, including at least one child, one juvenile and several adults of both sexes, span a period of 4000 years. The qualitative and comparative study of these contexts exhibits the following trends:

– All of the sites are located at the coast. They encompass caves/rock shelters, open-air sites, a former wetland and a possibly transgressed site.

– A variety of types of deposition and treatment of the dead is observed, including burials on open-air sites, burials or depositions in rock shelters/caves, the deposition of dead (?) bodies or body parts in saltwater, and single (loose) human bones deposited on activity areas – either in the open-air or in rock shelters/caves.

– The one deposition in a wetland is dated to the Middle Mesolithic period, while graves are first documented from the Late Mesolithic period.

– In four cases the burial of intact bodies seems likely. Three of these (nos. 6, 8a [skeleton II], 10), possibly four (no. 5a), were arranged in a flexed body position.

– Grave-goods are only recorded for the youngest burials (nos. 10, 11a).

– Single burials seem to prevail (nos. 4, 6, 11a and probably 5a), but places with several burials exist (no. 8a; no. 10).

– A marking of the burial above ground is observed in two cases (no. 6: a hearth; no. 10: a stone pile).

– The deposition of different types of bones can be observed in different contexts. Beside the remains of supposedly integrated bodies, the finds of single human bones in well-preserved contexts support varieties of the treatment of the dead.

These trends testify to diverse ways of dealing with and handling the dead, their bodies and remains, which indicate a range of possible mortuary practices.

The Stone Age Conference in Bergen 2017

UBAS University of Bergen Archaeological Series

The Stone Age Conference in Bergen 2017

Dag Erik Færø Olsen (ed.)

U niv ersity of B ergen Ar chaeological S eries 12

12

The Stone Age Conference in Bergen 2017

The Stone Age Conference in Bergen 2017

Dag Erik Færø Olsen (ed.)

2022

UBAS

University of Bergen Archaeological Series

12

Contents

List of authors

Preface

Acknowledgements

References

Almut Schülke

Placing – fragmenting – circulating:

Mesolithic burial and mortuary practices in Norway in a Northern European perspective

Abstract

Introduction

Mortuary remains as evidence of intertwined actions, (ritual) practices and events with different temporal dimensions

Mesolithic human remains, burials and mortuary practices from Norway

A variety of site locations along the coast

Direct and indirect dating of the human bone material

Human bones from wetlands/wet contexts

Burials of human bodies from caves and rock shelters

Graves on open-air settlements

Single (loose) human bones from caves/rock shelters and open-air sites

Conclusion – Trends in the material